1 MAC No. 1616 of 2018 2025:CGHC:44739 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1616 of 2018  Ghasin Bai W/o Shiv Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Ramgarh, Fulwaripara, P. S. and Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. .........… Claimant. ... Appellant versus 1. Rajesh Kumar Kushwaha S/o Kishan Lal Kushwaha, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Oriental Paper Meal, Near Amlai, District Shahdol Madhya Pradesh. Present R/o Sarthi Mohall, Bharrapara, Pendra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. .............Driver Of Vehicle No. C. G. 10 JDA 0623. 2. Rajesh Agrawal S/o Prakash Agrawal R/o Pendra, Post Office Pendra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ...............Owner Of Vehicle No. C. G. 10 JDA 0623. 3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office, Rama Trade Center, First Floor, Infront Of Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ................Insurer Of Vehicle No. C. G. 10 JDA 0623. ... Respondents ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.09.03 17:50:15 +0530 2 MAC No. 1616 of 2018 For Appellant :- Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 02.09.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant calling in question legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dated 26.07.2018 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pendra Road District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 02/2016, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the application for grant of compensation filed by the claimant/appellant herein finding no merit. 2. Brief facts of the case are that claimant Ghasin Bai on 05.02.2011 was traveling in the offending vehicle / bus bearing Registration No.CG-10-JDA-0623, owned by respondent No.2 herein and insured by respondent No.3, which was negligently driven by respondent No.1 on account of which the bus met with accident and turned 3 MAC No. 1616 of 2018 upside down due to which the appellant suffered permanent disability on her right hand and shoulder to the extent of 15% leading to filing of the application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal. 3. In order to prove her claim application, the claimant examined herself and also examined Dr. S.S. Bhatia, Orthopedic Specialist, who proved the claimant’s disability certificate (Ex.P/10) to the extent of 15%. During the course of medical examination of the claimant, Dr. S.S. Bhatia, has found the right shoulder of the claimant fractured which has wrong joint and stiffness has also been found on the shoulder of the claimant. Driver of the vehicle Rajesh Kumar Kushwaha, was also examined who in his statement has admitted that on account of failure of break, the accident occurred. Kotia Bai (AW-2) has also been examined, who was also traveling along with the claimant on the date and time of accident in the offending vehicle. Owner of the offending vehicle namely Rajesh Agrawal was not examined and Insurance Company has not examined any witness. However, the Insurance Company has only pleaded that the driver did not have the valid licence, so the offending 4 MAC No. 1616 of 2018 vehicle was being plied in the breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and also the claimant was not covered under the Insurance Policy. 4. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, rejected the claimant’s application for grant of compensation holding that it was not proved that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/respondent No.1 herein the accident occurred by which the claimant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 15% and, therefore, the claimant was not entitled for grant of compensation. 5. Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claimant’s application for grant of compensation by recorded a finding perverse to the record. He would also submit that with regard to the accident, the Claims Tribunal has wrongly recorded a finding, as the driver of the offending vehicle Rajesh Kumar Kushwaha, himself has clearly admitted that on account of failure of break, the vehicle turned upside down by which 5 MAC No. 1616 of 2018 the claimant had suffered injuries. Even the Insurance Company did not take any specific plea with regard to accident of the offending vehicle and that at the time of the accident the claimant was not present in the vehicle and also no witness has been examined on behalf of the Insurance Company, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the appellant. 6. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submit that the Insurance Policy (Ex.D/2) issued for the offending vehicle, was Act Only Policy and not a Comprehensive / Package Policy, therefore, the Insurance Company is not responsible to pay compensation to the claimant and the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records precisely. 8. The Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that the claimant has failed to prove that on account of rash and 6 MAC No. 1616 of 2018 negligent driving of the vehicle/bus by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3, the claimant suffered injury. However, in this regard, police has submitted the final report (Ex.P/1) and FIR (Ex.P/2) in which it has clearly been mentioned that the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC has been registered against driver Rajesh Kumar Kushwaha/respondent No.1 of the offending vehicle and name of claimant Ghasin Bai / appellant herein has been mentioned as an occupant of the bus. Even otherwise, driver – Rajesh Kumar Kushwaha has been examined before the Court as DW-1 and in his cross-examination he has clearly admitted that on the date of accident i.e. 05.02.2011, he was driving the offending vehicle and on account of failure of break, the accident occurred and he has also admitted that he was prosecuted for offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. 9. The driver of the offending vehicle has clearly stated that on account of failure of break of the offending vehicle, the accident occurred. It clearly reveals that the owner of the offending vehicle did not maintain the vehicle properly due 7 MAC No. 1616 of 2018 to which accident occurred for which owner is responsible to pay the compensation once the accident has been proved on account of failure of break of the offending vehicle. As such, the claimant has clearly proved that on account of negligence of respondents No.1 & 2, the accident occurred by which the claimant/appellant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 15% which has been proved by Dr. S.S. Bhatia, (AW-2) who is an Orthopedic Specialist in District Hospital, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. During medical examination of the claimant, he (AW-2) has found fracture on the right shoulder of the claimant which has wrong joint and also found stiffness on her right shoulder. As such, the claimant has proved that when the offending vehicle met with the accident, she sat in the vehicle and the accident occurred due to negligence of respondents No.1 & 2. 10.Now, the question for consideration is, what the compensation amount is liable to be paid to the claimant ? 11.In light of principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another 1 , I am of the considered opinion that 1 (2011) 1 SCC 343 8 MAC No. 1616 of 2018 under the head of pecuniary damages such as expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure, loss of earning during the period of treatment and non-pecuniary damages such as damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries, loss of amenities, the claimant/appellant is entitled to get a total compensation to the extent of ₹1,00,000/- As such, respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation of 1,00,000/- awarded by this Court within a ₹ period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 01.01.2016 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12.The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit